Unclear what exactly your point(s) is(are) here. HH's piece is wrong because you don't think she did enough work to differentiate hip-hop and jazz temporally? Record labels didn't invest in hip-hop until [x] year so "clearly" her statement is false? (Despite her not using a year anchor in the quoted sentence?)
You seem to have a sharp eye for cultural history and I suppose I see the need to recognize nuance but I'm struggling to see the point of this reaction. Honestly it feels like bad faith criticism just to be critical and I promise I came at this with an open mind.
If diction is as important as your footnote implies, surely you can agree that one can add complexity to anothers' thesis without labeling it "wrong"?
In a comment I made on her piece, which now seems to be gone, I said that her histories of jazz and hip-hop were wrong. Those make a big difference to the rest of her argument, particularly because of the similarity she is trying to draw between them. Like I said, these things are not what they seem to be in her article. The pull-quotes I use from her article mark the important problems.
My only wish is that you didn’t stop where you stopped. You write about “deepening the bereavement “ I wish you had put more attention to that, maybe even tying directly to the KDot. I think that will speak to readers such as Anderson and myself: And clarify your point that goes deeper than factual disagreement/correction.
Hm. I don't know what I should do to speak more clearly. Literally nothing in the essay is mere "factual disagreement/correction." I suppose that if I had to sum up my point: It's later than you think.
Interesting pov. I thought it was dope to see critical analysis on Substack. I don't see the bad faith honestly. I just see trying to mix it up on nuance. It wasn't personal at all!!!!! I disagree about the point in the footnote but to each their own.
Unclear what exactly your point(s) is(are) here. HH's piece is wrong because you don't think she did enough work to differentiate hip-hop and jazz temporally? Record labels didn't invest in hip-hop until [x] year so "clearly" her statement is false? (Despite her not using a year anchor in the quoted sentence?)
You seem to have a sharp eye for cultural history and I suppose I see the need to recognize nuance but I'm struggling to see the point of this reaction. Honestly it feels like bad faith criticism just to be critical and I promise I came at this with an open mind.
If diction is as important as your footnote implies, surely you can agree that one can add complexity to anothers' thesis without labeling it "wrong"?
In a comment I made on her piece, which now seems to be gone, I said that her histories of jazz and hip-hop were wrong. Those make a big difference to the rest of her argument, particularly because of the similarity she is trying to draw between them. Like I said, these things are not what they seem to be in her article. The pull-quotes I use from her article mark the important problems.
My only wish is that you didn’t stop where you stopped.
My only wish is that you didn’t stop where you stopped. You write about “deepening the bereavement “ I wish you had put more attention to that, maybe even tying directly to the KDot. I think that will speak to readers such as Anderson and myself: And clarify your point that goes deeper than factual disagreement/correction.
Hm. I don't know what I should do to speak more clearly. Literally nothing in the essay is mere "factual disagreement/correction." I suppose that if I had to sum up my point: It's later than you think.
Interesting pov. I thought it was dope to see critical analysis on Substack. I don't see the bad faith honestly. I just see trying to mix it up on nuance. It wasn't personal at all!!!!! I disagree about the point in the footnote but to each their own.
And looking at the sentence again I may not disagree actually. I'd have to double check what he is referring to.